Paying for ChatGPT Divides Students

ChatGPT Plus costs 20 euros a month: the academic advantage that divides students

One participant notes that their 12-year-old finishes homework in five minutes. Another, slightly older, has used ChatGPT since secondary school, achieved an outstanding EBAU score, and now studies aerospace engineering in Madrid using it for physics, math, and statistics. The subscription costs 20 euros a month, allows five devices, and still leaves one for a classmate. The thesis defended by the thread starter, and echoed by others, is uncomfortable: in high school and university, those without paid ChatGPT start at a disadvantage.

This is not an isolated headline. Behind it lies a specific household economy: 20 euros compared shamelessly to the cost of one hour of private tutoring, and a legion of students who no longer imagine studying without asking a machine at 11 pm. The debate is set, and it is not technological, but about distribution.

How much does paid ChatGPT cost, and what changes compared to the free version?

The plan most people refer to is the 20-euro monthly one. There is a higher tier, 200 euros a month, a detail corrected with sarcasm in the middle of the discussion: some argue about "paid ChatGPT" without knowing there are several products and prices. The free version imposes daily interaction limits and slightly lower quality; its defenders argue that it is more than enough and that the restriction is only noticed when the quota runs out.

There is no consensus. One current argues that opening multiple accounts bypasses limits without spending a euro. Another responds that the paid plan also has limits, and that its real advantage is not quantity but endurance: 12 to 14 hours straight of work with a specialized tool, in the most extreme case mentioned. There, the argument that "it is the same" falls apart.

The grade gap opening in high school

The uses described range from tedious work to legitimate study. Essays fixed in two minutes, problems solved step by step, formula summaries for exams, examples generated until the concept clicks, even links to videos on the subject. The entire theoretical BA or Master's thesis with a good grade is the most circulating anecdote: the effort, it is said, is no longer in mastering the topic but in using it in a way that does not raise suspicion.

The classic objection arises naturally. If you are new to the subject, you do not know what to ask or if the answer is good. The tool amplifies those who already know and sinks those who cannot distinguish a correct answer from a hallucination. One participant admits to errors, that sometimes it invents things, and that it corrects with geisha-like politeness when caught. The difference is whether this stops you or makes you indifferent.

Is it the best private tutor on the market?

The most repeated argument is economic: 20 euros a month buys explanations of mathematics, physics, or statistics at any time, without schedules and without anyone's patience wearing out. Compared to private tutoring, the arithmetic is undeniable. For pure calculation, some add paid Wolfram Alpha, 70 euros a year, calling it a complete tool.

The underlying complaint is not technological, but systemic, aimed at teachers who, according to the thread starter, have used the same slides for a decade. Why memorize derivatives if no one explains them well and the machine does? The question is more uncomfortable than it seems.

The other side: functional illiteracy and digital crutches

The counter-accusation is that the tool zascandil. The most repeated analogy is the car GPS: you stop thinking and trinc the arrow. A specific case is cited, the shortest route between Espinosa de los Monteros and San Roque de Riomiera, which an AI dispatched with a highway; without personal criteria, the result is accepted as is.

This is joined by complaints about concentration. A sheet of paper, or a screen with scrolling, has become an inexpressible effort for a growing part of the student body. And the manual warning: you learn to use the tool knowing the world, or you end up being an AI hamster. Some point out, moreover, that teachers will eventually ask for handwritten or orally defended assignments.

A repeated argument these days summarizes it without embellishment: the tool does not make anyone stupider by itself, nor does it make smart anyone who does not think. The problem, they say, is not access, but usage.

The usual gap: from computers to artificial intelligence

The historical parallel is explicit. There was a time when those without computers and printers were at a disadvantage; then, those without internet; now, those without AI. Education has always been classist, and this is another layer. Others add the precedent of the calculator, described as an undisputed pogre: you just need to know which key to press.

Digital encyclopedias from the nineties and the projects done with them are also remembered. The discussion is not new. Every tool that saves effort eventually ends up in the classroom, sooner or later, and what is decided is who uses it and for what.

No one has yet put a figure on how many grade points the subscription adds and how many the kid earns. That, and not the price, is the disconcerting question.